There was no reason for the government to orchestrate 9/11... they could have provoked outrage using a less destructive method. The government isn't led by Lex Luther. George Bush isn't going to flood the world (using alien crystals that grow when they touch water), just to get some high-end real estate property.

Just like the government wouldn't destroy two giant towers in New York city just to get people upset.

Wow, that is amazing! But it must be in proportion to an amount you already payed them. lol... so really your just getting a fraction of the hard earned cash you previously handed over to them.

Or you are getting a tax-loan that will have to be paid back next tax season. (Economic stimulus packages usually consist of these kinds of "tax loans" or "fake tax cuts" that are just meant to psycologically stimulate the economy by promoting spending.)

[QUOTE="jimhogg"]

[QUOTE="Kuja9998"]:) Once again... abortion is wrong ONLY in the context of religion. Because of separation between church and state as far as the law in concerned Abortion is morally acceptable.
EboyLOL

the only people who approve of abortion are the ones who have themselves been born- Ronald Reagan.

The quote has merit, but as I explained in my last post sentient human rights should supercede the rights of non-sentient fetuses when their interests directly conflict.

[QUOTE="Kuja9998"][QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"][QUOTE="jimhogg"]and your proof is?...

jimhogg

If you're going to debate the existance of a soul, I'm afraid the burden of proof falls upon your shoulders.

i know, but considering the Bible is the most confirmed piece of literature to be true ever written kind of leans it in my favor...

The bible is confirmed to be 100% accurate eh? lol... your either very young or very stupid.

what i'm saying is that there is more evidence stating that the Bible is true than of Homer writing the iliad...

The question of whether the bible is true is not an all or nothing affair. It isn't like there scientists get into a room and say "There is a 50% chance that everything in the bible is true, and 50% chance everything is false" The events of the bible correlate to some historical events, but to say that it is absolutely true because of this limited correlation is on par with adding a sentence to a history book that says "Aliens started the great depression" and believing that fact just because it is a history book.

[QUOTE="Kuja9998"]

Those crazy scientists will say anything to get headlines, and nothing gets headlines better than to state the outrageous. (God doesn't exist, orly then who do I talk to every night MR Scientist?!?!)

SSCyborg

What do you say to the dinosaurs?

... what part of my last post did you miss? Was it the sarcasm, irony or parody cuz that post clearly had all 3. lol

[QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"][QUOTE="jimhogg"]and your proof is?...

SSCyborg

If you're going to debate the existance of a soul, I'm afraid the burden of proof falls upon your shoulders.

i know, but considering the Bible is the most confirmed piece of literature to be true ever written kind of leans it in my favor...

LOL who confirmed it? the thousands of thousands of scientists that say Creatism is a lie and we evolved through evolution?

Those crazy scientists will say anything to get headlines, and nothing gets headlines better than to state the outrageous. (God doesn't exist, orly then who do I talk to every night MR Scientist?!?!)

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"][QUOTE="jimhogg"]and your proof is?...

jimhogg

If you're going to debate the existance of a soul, I'm afraid the burden of proof falls upon your shoulders.

i know, but considering the Bible is the most confirmed piece of literature to be true ever written kind of leans it in my favor...

The bible is confirmed to be 100% accurate eh? lol... your either very young or very stupid.

Yes, to some extent I agree with that statement killing a newborn is not as morally aprehensible as killing a fully sentient being.

However, in this case the rights of the mother do not directly conflict with the rights of the newborn. Killing the newborn would be a senseless act, as the mother has the ability to withdraw all obligations to the child without consequence. In this case even the limited rights of the lowly infant outweigh those of the mother, because the mother has accessible non-invasive options other than ending the child's life.